Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A Thread About Movies

Posts

As you said, Tarantino discourages in-depth criticism of his films, the films themselves put much effort into being all about surface. What exactly is it that makes in-depth analysis, looking at his films as parabels or metaphors seem a plausible approach to his films?

Couldn't it just be a case like the hat in Miller's Crossing, which according to the Coens themselves... is just a hat. Isn't it possible that a film that exudes coolness and cinematic awesomeness has nothing else on its mind and nothing else driving it? That "cool & awesome" is really all there is to it?

Like I said above, Inglourious Basterds does suggest a more coherent voice underneath the surface and a more explicit acknowledgement of the moral and ethical implications of the characters' actions within the narrative. If you believe that Kill Bill is a Buddhist parable, then surely you must consider IB a step backwards as its "meaning" is so much more blatant and apparent than in Tarantino's earlier movies.

That there's strong evidence for complex ideas in most of his work? I believe at the very least that Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill, Inglourious Basterds, and Death Proof all have something detailed and interesting to say.

As you said, Tarantino discourages in-depth criticism of his films, the films themselves put much effort into being all about surface. What exactly is it that makes in-depth analysis, looking at his films as parabels or metaphors seem a plausible approach to his films?

Couldn't it just be a case like the hat in Miller's Crossing, which according to the Coens themselves... is just a hat.

There are plenty of examples of authors decrying attempts to read things into their stories. The Coens are famous for it, Hitchcock was much more likely to talk technique than theme, John Ford left it at "I make Westerns", and Charlie Kaufman just refuses to explain to anybody what the burning house in "Synecdoche New York" is meant to mean. Does it follow that there is no meaning? From a book on Peckinpah:

The anti-intellectual posture also has another basis. "I make it a point," [Peckinpah] once said, "of not trying to to explain my films." It isn't that he didn't want them discussed. It is rather that he believed their meanings consisted not in some neatly paraphrasable theme or idea but in the experiencing of the films themselves, which every filmgoer has to do on his or her own. His attitude is not dissimilar to that of Hawthorne, who writes in the preface to The House of the Seven that when stories "do really teach anything, or produce any effective operation, it is usually through a far more subtile process than the ostensible one" of supplying "some definite moral purpose".
...
In [avoiding analyzing his own work] Peckinpah had a far more sophisticated grasp of the relationship among artist, artist's intention, artwork, and audience than the majority of his critics do.

Isn't it possible that a film that exudes coolness and cinematic awesomeness has nothing else on its mind and nothing else driving it? That "cool & awesome" is really all there is to it?

I think there are movies like that, but a QT movie is typically more self-aware than that--it constructs a facade of "cool" in order to deconstruct it or contrast it with morally questionable actions. I don't have time now but if you want to pick one of QT's movies I'll go into some depth and look at how he uses various techniques to accomplish this.

I'm just not convinced that Tarantino has the same relation to both his films and his audience as Peckinpah, Hitchcock, the Coens, Kaufman or Ford do. Their movies are very explicitly and openly about more than just the surface. I simply don't see the same kind of care, reflection and coherency in Tarantino's films prior to Inglourious Basterds.

WRT "the hat": I think the Coens aren't playing coy when they argue that it's just a hat. Any meaning is created through contextualisation by the audience. We infer and project meaning onto the hat, because we see it as part of the complex language of symbols, verbal cues and references within which we look at the film. But it is just a hat. They did not use it as a code for anything, which does not mean that they weren't aware that the audience would recognise a recurring visual motif and take it into account when watching the film. I don't think they meant to trick or fool anyone by doing so. But it is one thing to leave ambiguity and open spaces within a narrative for the audience to engage with. (My personal favourite is near the end of No Country when Chigurr leaves the apartment and checks his shoes.) It is another to withhold elements of the narrative from the audience to tease them.

I don't think any of Tarantino's films operate on such a high level of narration. When there are open spaces within Tarantino's narrative (like the contents of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, or Mr. Pink's fate in Reservoir Dogs), they are there because they are cool and stylish.

Cabin In The Woods is so unique that it doesn't have a chance to feel too "Whedony." If you're familiar with Whedon stuff you'll certainly recognize some actors, but honestly I think that he has been unjustly "type-cast" as a writer, at least with his more recent work. What do you hate about him? I'll let you know if its in the movie, and if it is I won't insist that you see it.

I just got back and I loved the movie, and anyone who is thinking about seeing it should avoid spoilers and then go see it. It was the most fun I've had watching a movie in a very very long time.

ALSO, I went into this movie knowing almost nothing about it, after having heard from the internet that this is what you should do. I am so glad that I listened to this advice. In fact, I was curious so I just watched the trailer for the movie and I cannot stress enough that you should not watch trailers for this movie, or look at commercials, or read reviews. Just go see it.

Wanted to jump in and say, don't read anything or talk to anyone about it but go see Cabin In the Woods, holy shit was it amazing.
Great fun horror movie, can't remember last time I saw a movie and was so satisfied with it as a whole.

Damn. Fuck The Expandables, this is an action movie. Brutal fights (don't think I ever heard so many "Jesus Christ!" from an audience or shocked laughter) which are amazingly choreographed and more than that actually shot so you can see all the action. There's parts of the movie where it's just 10-20 minutes of action and you don't miss anything. There's also some fucking tense moments.

So, being bored and stuck at my dad's watching his dogs while he's on vacation, I watched the BluRay special features of Captain America, Thor and now Star Wars (the old documentaries on the bonus disc).

It's interesting to see how the more recent Marvel movies did a lot of what Lucas did back in the day. And now compare with what he does now... It's sad. The practical effects and everything compared to the more digitial products these days.

I've refrained from posting about it because my bias towards the screenwriter is pretty transparent.

"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz EllorMy new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!

Ehhhhhhhhhhh, I went in knowing nothing but it being a horror flick and the recommendations from this thread. So I went in thinking I would get a good horror flick and was sorely disappointed. The movie is really a parody of the genre, not something to be taken seriously. One I realized that, I could get over a lot of the average-ness of the flick (since that seemed to be part of the point).

"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz EllorMy new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!

It's not a parody. It's kind of a deconstruction, although only sort of. I'm not sure what I would really call it, but I posit that it is a good horror movie because... (spoilers omitted). But to be fair 90%+ of horror movies are terrible, and 98% of slasher movies are terrible.

I guess I expected to be scared in a horror movie; I wasn't. Cabin the Woods isn't that type of movie, and I bet most people laughed more than got scared which doesn't bode well for "horror". But for what it ended up being, it was fun although I'm a bit iffy if it'll work on subsequent viewings or even have staying power.

edit: I mean just re-read the spoilers for those who have seen it, they are all comedy related. An analogy: Zombieland is to Night of the Living Dead as Cabin in the Woods is to The Descent. I liked all of these movies, but I would consider Night of the Living Dead a better zombie movie than Zombieland, The Descent a better horror movie than Cabin in the Woods.

Saw The Raid tonight, some CRAZY action if you're a martial arts fan it's worth seeing. It's one of those ones where you see the stunts and wince because wires, padding, whatever, there's no way filming it didn't hurt like hell.
Pretty sure the US could never make that sort of thing because no one would insure the stunts.

I'm itching to see Cabin in the Woods again, I just keep thinking about that movie. So awesome.

"This isn't right, we should split up, we'll cover more ground that way! Everybody to their rooms!" I loved how that character was holding on to that logic despite Franz Kranz's beautifully delivered "really?"

Watched Blue Valentine tonight. Best film I've seen in a long time. I am fully on board with Gosling now, that man is fantastic. And Michelle Williams is now on my radar, I was smitten with her. I loved everything about it: the soundtrack, the actors, the writing (apparently there's lots of improvised dialogue), the cinematography... It was just incredible start to finish.

However it will definitely stomp all over your heart and leave you feeling rather emotional by the end.

edit: I mean just re-read the spoilers for those who have seen it, they are all comedy related. An analogy: Zombieland is to Night of the Living Dead as Cabin in the Woods is to The Descent. I liked all of these movies, but I would consider Night of the Living Dead a better zombie movie than Zombieland, The Descent a better horror movie than Cabin in the Woods.

Honestly, I'd compare this more to Shaun of the Dead. And Shaun of the Dead is fantastic at what it does.

Spoiler:

Really, I felt like the movie kept jumps and tension in just fine. I mean, its the moment it happens that's the payoff. After that, when they cut away in this movie, its usually just gratuitous and not scary any more in any other movies. So I don't think there's anything wrong with them cutting to the controllers after someone gets stabbed, or right before a redneck zombie pops through a window. Those lead-ups are going to happen in all of those movies, but there were still people in the theatre doing the typical "Get away from the window!" sort of quips and winces.

And the lady from Chem department was Fred in Angel. Only she's working for Wolfram and Hart now. It's so good.

Also,

Spoiler:

The intern was Andrew from Buffy]

Seriously, same basic character.

I really enjoyed Cabin in The Woods. Yeah, I'm a Whedon fan, so there's that, but aside from that, I still think it's a horror movie that works. Like others have said, it's really not a parody, more like a love letter ala Shaun of the Dead. I really recommend it. I loved how the first act was basically

Spoiler:

Evil Dead

Complete with totally bad ass and unexpected weaponry.

Though I do have some things that didn't quite make sense.

Spoiler:

How the fuck does the organization come up with all those monsters? And why would they have a big red button that releases them into the lobby? I know that when the fool/virgin where in the elevator, they directed it to the lobby, but it seems weird that it would have also directed all the other monster cubes